South End industrial use hangs on

Elizabeth Kim

Updated 10:11 pm, Monday, April 29, 2013

John Wooten, left, and his neighbor Bob Owens, right, talk in front of a construction site where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent in their residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

John Wooten, left, and his neighbor Bob Owens, right, talk in front...

A construction site where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent sits in a residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

The first floor of new construction where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent sits next to a home in a residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

From left, Pat Wooten, her husband John Wooten, and their neighbor Bob Owens talk in front of a construction site where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent in their residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

A construction site where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent sits in a residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

A construction site where signs advertise six "industrial condos" will be for sale or rent sits in a residential neighborhood on Cedar Street in Stamford on Thursday, March 28, 2013.
Photo: Lindsay Perry

In 1980, a group of South End homeowners living on and around Cedar Street, a one-way road stretching north from Woodland Cemetery, successfully petitioned the city to rezone a set of industrial properties incongruously nestled against their homes as residential.

It was an effort to solve a problem in the once factory-dominated neighborhood -- a patchwork of industrial and residential zones, resulting in an uneasy balance of working and middle-class families living alongside warehouses, factories and construction facilities.

Although existing users were grandfathered into the new zone, homeowners felt assured that over time they would be phased out.

They got their wish in 2007, when the Zoning Board approved a plan to convert an 8,000-square-foot warehouse at 45 Cedar St. into a seven-unit condominium development. Located on an industrial-zoned lot of less than a quarter-acre, the warehouse, which was more than 100 years old and deemed historic, had most recently been used to store surgical supplies. Beside it had been a single-family house that once served as an office but was demolished the year before for being blighted.

"We were ecstatic," said Patricia Wooten, who grew up across the street in the one of many Cape-style homes lining the neighborhood and now lives in the same house with her family. Residents had long complained about the truck traffic generated by the warehouse and badly wanted to see the site redeveloped.

Then the recession hit, putting a halt to many projects. But with the ongoing Harbor Point redevelopment churning out apartment complexes practically at their doorsteps, residents remained hopeful that construction would eventually begin.

Months ago, work finally began. But to the residents' shock, the project had radically changed. New investors had taken over the property and scrapped plans for housing. The site was instead being cleared for an "industrial condominium," which allows units to be purchased by separate industrial users.

"We thought it was going to be better until this happened," said John Wooten, Patricia's husband, who cited the increasing number of walkers, runners, and bicyclists as signs that the neighborhood was finally "solidifying."

"Then all of a sudden someone drops a commercial building between two residential houses and in front of mine," he said.

How a residentially zoned property managed to revert back to an industrial use has to do with what residents have described as a legal loophole. According to court precedents in Connecticut, an established non-conforming use can only be lost if it is "abandoned."

But what has drawn the disbelief and ire of residents in the case of 45 Cedar St. is the fact that not only had the warehouse not been used for several years, it had even ceased to exist. In November 2008, the two-story facility was destroyed in a fire.

In August 2011, the property owner, Cedar Street Associates LLC, sought city permission to reconstruct the warehouse on the basis that it never intended to relinquish the industrial use. The group's attorney, Joseph Capalbo, was a land-use attorney who has represented other South End industrial users and was appointed the city's director of legal affairs in April 2012.

In a letter to the city that cited prior court cases, Capalbo argued his client did not take steps to begin constructing the approved housing development, but instead made efforts to rent the warehouse "with limited success." After the fire, a claims dispute with the insurance company wound up entangling the property in a lawsuit, forcing the owner to leave it dormant.

Zoning regulations state that a building which has been damaged under certain circumstances, including a fire, may be reconstructed and used according to its original purposes only if the reconstruction is started within 12 months.

Capalbo argued that a portion of the property had been rented to a contracting company for equipment and building supply storage and staging, proving the owner's intent to remain industrial.

In January, the property was sold to a different limited liability company, Stamford Cedar Associates, for $375,000, according to city property records.

The Wootens as well as a neighboring property owner, Bob Owens, have questioned the law department's ruling, saying the city never investigated the owner's claims. They also said they were never notified about the current project.

"This never had our support," said Owens, who bought his house in 1977 and was among the group of homeowners who took part in the rezoning initiative.

Moreover, the homeowners said they have not been given a say on what kind of users can inhabit the spaces nor on the hours of operation.

James Lunney, the city's zoning enforcement officer, could not be reached for comment.

An advertisement for the property in Zillow, a real estate website, states the industrial condo units at 45 Cedar St. will be available for rent or purchase June 1. The units are described as "Ideal for Electrical, Plumbing, Landscaping Contractors and etc." Each unit is to have two parking spaces.

Mario Musilli, who represents the new ownership group, said a paid notice about the project was published in the The Advocate shortly after the city issued a building permit last December.

Although he expressed sympathy for the residents, he said his client was simply building what is permitted.

"I guess we are just stepping into their wrath," he said.

John Wooten and Owens said they have met with Mayor Michael Pavia. According to them, although the mayor showed concern and promised to follow-up, they have not been given assurances that the administration would intervene on a project that appears to be steamrolling ahead.

For Wooten, the issue potentially sets a dangerous precedent in a residential community that has for decades been trying to rid itself of old industrial users. Not far away, residents on Harbor Street have long lodged complaints about a road building contractor, Vitti Construction, another user which has been grandfathered in a residential area.

"If these guys get away with this, who's to say someone else won't do the same thing?" he said.